Recovering Political Prostitute

You are reading

Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, and he doesn’t want to make wedding cakes for gay couples. In my mind, that makes him a bigot and a lousy businessman. But as a free man, he has the moral right to be a bigot, even if I believe he’s wrong.

It’s easy to support individual freedom when the individual in question is sympathetic and says all the right things. The real test of whether you support freedom or not is whether you support people who want to use their freedom to do things you don’t approve of.

This issue is at the heart of a controversy that’s raging in this country today. The battle lines are generally seen as gay people and their allies on one side vs. social conservatives and some religious people who object to homosexuality on the other side. Those on one side say that business owners must be forced to do business with gay couples against their will. Those on the other side say religious freedom is at stake and that they should be able to decide not to do business with gay and lesbian couples. But framing the issue this way misses the point.

The only real issue is whether human beings have the right to make their own choices about who they want to voluntarily associate with.

If a person has the freedom to decide who he wants to associate with, he’s free to choose to associate only with left-handed green-eyed ex-convicts if he wants. He’s free to choose to associate only with beautiful people. He’s free to choose to associate only with people of his own religious group. He’s free to shun religious people entirely. He’s free to shun gay people or Asians or people who he thinks smell funny.

In other words, a free man has the moral right to make decisions that neither you nor I agree with.

If you have a bakery that refuses to deal with gay people or black people or Muslims or any other group that some people would like to avoid, I have every right to decline to do business with you. Those of us who disapprove of those policies can do business with people whose values match up with our own. Freedom works both ways.

If I owned a bakery — or any other kind of business — I would want to do business with anyone who wanted my product or service. I would want to hire the best employees I could get for my money, and I would want all the customers I could possibly get. I wouldn’t be asking those people whether they agree with my moral or religious views.

I don’t want some law to enshrine one particular form of bigotry and pretend that’s what freedom amounts to. On the other hand, I also don’t want to insist that businesses have a moral responsibility to serve any customer they don’t want to serve. I’d rather just acknowledge the general principle that people have the right to associate with whoever they want to associate with — for whatever reason they choose, whether I agree or not.

When it was still unclear what would happen with the Arizona bill — before Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed it — a Tucson, Ariz., pizza restaurant made headlines when it declared that it reserved the right not to serve legislators. Rocco’s Chicago Pizzeria posted a sign that said, “We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators.” The move was wildly popular with supporters of gay couples.

The irony, of course, is that the owners of the pizza place and the hair stylist were both asserting their rights to do business with the people they choose — for reasons of their own. They’re claiming the right to be free and to choose their own voluntary associations.

They’re absolutely right that they’re asserting this freedom. It’s odd that they’re asserting it in an apparent effort to demand that other people not have the same freedom to make their own choices of association.

Free people don’t always make choices that I consider wise or moral. But as long as they don’t use force to impose their choices on others, they have the moral right to make choices that I disagree with.

In other words, people have the moral right to be bigots — and those of us who disagree with them have the right not to associate with them.

For one, could we do without the words ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobe’? They serve as conversation stoppers similar to the playground taunt ‘I know you are, but what am I?’ And for you, David, I believe you to be above this. Do you know the back story? This same bakery had a long relationship with these people, baking for them for other occasions.

Sincere Christian people believe marriage is not a wax nose, able to formed into whatever someone wants to make it. I believe it to be a sacred institution created by God; a union between a man and woman. It reflects the love between Jesus and His church.

For the baker to be asked to bake for this ceremony is saying, “You are asking me to use all my professional skills to make this look like a marriage. I believe it to be a lie, and you asking me to help you tell it.”

In a civil and free society they would have been saddened, and hopefully understanding, but politely gone and found someone else to do business with. What was done? File a militant court case. Put them out of business.

Would it be fair to call them ‘bigoted’ and ‘Christophobic’? But that does nothing to advance the conversation.

David McElroy

March 3, 2014 @ 5:02 pm

Jeff, I think “bigot” is a reasonable term here. I don’t use the word “homophobic,” because I think it’s a silly and inaccurate word — unless someone has some odd phobia of gay people that I’m not aware of. I don’t see it as bigotry to believe that homosexuality is a sin or that gays shouldn’t marry. I can understand why reasonable people can come to those conclusions. But it’s bigotry to say, “I’m not going to provide this product that I typically provide to others because I disapprove of what you’re doing with the product.” Does the baker investigate other prospective marriage partners and make sure they’re free of sin that he would disapprove of? Of course not. To provide a cake for someone isn’t to say, “I approve of your marriage.”

But to get sidetracked on that tangent is to miss my real point. Whether you consider it bigotry or not, a free society allows someone to make this decision for himself — and it allows other people to do business with him (or not) depending on what you think of his decision. Pick whatever you happen to consider bigotry that involves personal associations and the same logic applies. As I said in the article, if a person doesn’t want to do business with religious folks, he has that moral right, but I’d call that bigotry, too.

KathyF

March 3, 2014 @ 5:26 pm

The hair stylist and pizza joint refusing service were pretty doggone funny. They didn’t even see the irony of what they were doing to protest what someone else didn’t want to do, did they?

Luc

March 3, 2014 @ 11:08 pm

I fully believe in the freedom of association( and the right to not associate) yet those who comply with the oppressors feel the need to try to convince me that I cannot disassociate myself from governments and those who follow that cult like behaviour.

Follow your heart and I think it will lead you in the right direction. If your heart is filled with hate then i don’t think these people have the right to represent themselves as religious follower as I am not aware of a single religion that preaches hate as it’s message.

Follow the 3 real laws and all will be well.

1) do not harm people.
2)do not harm property
3)do not misrepresent yourself.

Outside of this, IMO, nothing is illegal but three are interest out there that will have you believe otherwise.

David, I’ll stand by my non-use of the word bigot. Along with racist and homophobe, it has long been overused preemptively attack a person’s character and then as a cudgel to beat their good name into oblivion. A once good word has been rendered useless. Besides, character assassination is a very grievous thing indeed.

The Christian baker does not need to investigate the lives of a man and woman getting married. By definition, it is what they should be doing. Two men/women are openly engaging in what is an affront to God. I think it not unreasonable that the Christian baker refuses to participate.

Now what people want to project upon the baker is that he was spat hateful, mean, bigoted words at these people. But he had a relationship with them. It may have very well caused him much pain and grief. Maybe even tears. No one knows.

It could have been like Jesus with the rich, young man. He loved him the Bible says. But when confronted with the choice of following Jesus or his wealth, the man walked away. Jesus didn’t run after him and tell him he was just kidding or that it was just a test or let’s try to work it out. Jesus left him go. And he loved him. Agape is the word.

Daniel

March 4, 2014 @ 10:18 am

You are having trouble with the word Bigot as defined in the Oxford Dictionary

“Having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others”

Then you said “The Christian baker does not need to investigate the lives of a man and woman getting married. By definition, it is what they should be doing.”

Perhaps, your issue is with the word definition.

Jacqueline

March 4, 2014 @ 10:44 am

Actually, the right to be a bigot is not real freedom. If you want REAL freedom, then locate your bakery shop out any public area that is affected by public tax funding for streets, parking lots, snow removal, public water and utilities etc.. Meaning, you can’t access the police to protect your shop because all of us, including the non-bigots are then required to support your bigoted business. Then you can’t have any public utilities for the same reason. Fire service, ambulance services, public hospitals, any business that gets public funding or tax breaks, , then you cannot locate your shop near any public transport, or buses, because you need to be free to discriminate, and then we are all required to participate against our wills to supporting the means by which people would get to your store. So yeah, you want the goodies that being in a civilized society provides but you don’t want to comply with anti-discrimination laws or you want the right to hate who you want at the same time. No way. Go off in the woods, and bake your little cakes and you can hand deliver your cake brochure to your insular world where you can create your Jim-Crow, Gay-Crow, Jane-Crow world as you please. Just don’t ask the rest of the public to support it financially.

David McElroy

March 4, 2014 @ 11:01 am

Jacqueline, your argument will make sense just as soon as governments start allowing people to take their own property and withdraw from the forced control that they exert over us. Until then, withdrawing isn’t an option. Many of us would very much like it to be an option.

Thank you for making my point. Words mean things. There is nothing being reported about the baker’s behavior which would indicate he acted in a bigoted manner. It makes my point that the word bigot is used primarily in a pejorative manner to cut off conversation and destroy a person’s character without merit. This, I would offer, is bigotry in itself per the definition offered.

But as has been noted, whether a person declines a service or product because of a severe character flaw or because conscience compels it, people should have the freedom to transact business without the oppressive compulsion of a government.

BigWhiteDog

March 4, 2014 @ 12:42 pm

Hyperbole and [expletive deleted]. IF you want to go into business, you give up certain things. Plain and simple. Don’t want to associate with someone, don’t go into business. And there is no such thing as true “freedom” so grow up.

Daniel

March 4, 2014 @ 12:58 pm

I didn’t make your point. I proved you hold bigoted ideas.

But, I guess this goes back to another one of David’s articles about people not being able to see past their own predetermined notions.

Daniel, by your own arguments you “Have or reveal an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others”.

I assume you have some rock solid convictions in life. Non-negotiables. Lines you won’t cross. If we could have a conversation, I may not agree with some. Perhaps strongly. But that does not mean I consider your convictions ‘bigoted’. As I mentioned before, I believe the word is worn out and useless except to brow beat someone with which you do not agree.

I seems that we will not be able to have a conversation.

Berry

March 4, 2014 @ 4:46 pm

I generally agree with the author, other than his use of the word “bigot.” You might find, with a bit of research, that many business operators who balk at the notion of supporting a practice they find morally abhorrent–marriage between two people of the same gender–have no problem selling anything else to gay people. You don’t have to dislike gay people to have a problem with forcible redefinition of traditions like marriage.

Leave your comment

Please be polite. To use your own avatar, register for free at Gravatar.

Name

Required.

Email

Required. Won't be published.

Web

Comment

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Please note: JavaScript is required to post comments.

Start over here

Do you have a love/hate relationship with politics? This is the beginning of a community of people who are looking for ways to say “no” to politics and say “yes” to real life. If you stick around, you’ll read about the futility of the state and you’ll also be subjected to the strange brand of humor that lives in David McElroy’s head, as well as random links and pictures of cute cats (and the occasional drooling dog). If you’re ready to move beyond politics, join our tribe. Read more.

Contact David

Watch this short film

What kind of "educational film" would the U.S. government release today to teach Americans how to be good citizens?We're the Government — and You're Not
Official selection of 20 film festivals
Winner of several random awards
Plus a boatload of views on YouTube
(Yeah, we were surprised, too)Drop David a note if you want to write him a check to make more of these amazing masterpieces.
Yes, seriously.

Commenting guidelines

Anyone is welcome to make comments, but there are a few simple rules:
1) No profanity. No exceptions.
2) Don’t make personal attacks in your comments. If anybody gets attacked here, David will do the attacking. If you want to do it yourself, well, start your own website.
3) Rules will be enforced in an arbitrary, capricious manner at David's whim. It’s not a democracy or a free-for-all. He’s the benevolent dictator here.